* In a career context, these figures will be restricted between 0 and 5, with 5 as the highest on the IMPACT Index scale. In a match context though, the unrestricted figures tell their own stories.

Observations:

It is not so common to see a single player
dominate a match so emphatically, as the Australian captain did. Clarke was the highest impact player in
the match (Match IMPACT 9.81*). His batting performance of 329 not out in 468
balls had everything – he built big partnerships, but before that, even
absorbed considerable pressure – when Australia was tottering at 37 for 3. He
had a Batting IMPACT of 8.36* that made for 85% of his impact of his impact in
the match (he also bowled, fielded and of course, led the side).

The next highest impact batsman for Australia
was Ponting – with a Batting IMPACT
of 4.06, less than half of Clarke’s. Meanwhile, Hussey’s impact was less than
half of Ponting’s, despite making more runs. This may seem bizarre but there is
a simple explanation. Ponting made 134 while Hussey made an unbeaten 150, but
Ponting’s impact is far greater on the match because of the circumstances they
were made in. He walked in at 8 for 2, which would become 37 for 3, before
Clarke and he turned the match on its head. When Ponting finally got out at 325
(which is when Hussey came in), Australia’s domination was already considerable
(a lead of 134). Hussey’s contribution put the screws on India but it values up
to a Batting IMPACT of just 1.70 in the context of the match – a good indicator
of how Impact Index works.

Hilfenhaus,
for the second consecutive time in the series,
had the highest bowling impact in the match (Bowling IMPACT 4.46) followed by Pattinson (3.54). While Pattinson
delivered the highest Bowling IMPACT innings of 3.34 in the match on the first
day (4 for 43), he failed to have much influence in the second innings (1 for 106),
Hilfenhaus managed to perform in both the innings (3 for 51 in the first and 5
for 106 in the second).

Both the bowlers had Pressure-Building IMPACT
in the first innings (Pattinson for the wickets of Sehwag and Laxman to reduce
India to 59 for 4 from 55 for 2, Hilfenhaus for wickets of Ashwin, Zaheer and
Sharma to reduced India to 186-8 from 178-6) while Hilfenhaus also had Economy
IMPACT from his tight bowling in the first innings where he gave away just 51
runs in his 22 overs.

India’s batting failure was much graver than
that in Melbourne as only two batsmen had a Batting IMPACT of over 1. Tendulkar’s 41 runs (1st
innings) and 80 runs (2nd innings) earned him a Batting IMPACT of
1.33 while Gambhir’s 0 and 83 earned
him a Batting IMPACT of 1.07.

The Indian bowling also was a failure except
for Zaheer’s effort of 3 for 122
(Bowling IMPACT 2.41). His effort on the first day to reduce Australia to 37
for 3 had a Pressure Building IMPACT and was certainly the only positive moment
for India in the match.

There is now no doubt that Dhoni is out-of-his-depth when it comes
to Test captaincy. His propensity to wait for things to happen (which has
worked so well for him in limited-overs cricket) cannot get him the
benefit-of-doubt as it did in England (when a strong case of exhaustion could
be made).

Lyon
was the only player to have a negative impact for Australia in the match (Match
IMPACT -0.18*). Three bowlers from India had a negative IMPACT on the match – Yadav, Ashwin and Sharma.

It is one of the great mysteries of
modern-day cricket that Ishant Sharma
does not get affected for repeatedly producing low impact bowling performances.
His potential (that is seen vividly when he bowls the good balls) seems to
overpower his much more regular displays of mediocre bowling (largely due to
indiscipline and a seeming lack of focus). For the umpteenth time this year,
Sharma had a low impact showing – overall, going below zero impact in this
match.

However, the real reason for India’s
thrashing here is not the bowlers. It is true the conditions here were not for
bowlers – and India desperately misses the services of Praveen Kumar, much like
they missed Zaheer Khan in England, just so two bowlers could bowl tightly in
tandem – however, the onus has to rest on the highly fancied Indian batsman.

Contrary to how some are seeing India’s 2nd
innings batting performance, it was not at all a sign of a fight. In the first Indian
innings, the pitch at least gave some assistance to the bowlers, but in the
second innings, it was a gutless display of unforced errors by the batsmen, on
a pitch giving no assistance to bowlers. Dravid did get a very good ball (his
style of defensive play, right through his career curiously, has always brought
out the best in bowlers) but being bowled four times in a row is not a good
sign for him.

Whether it’s the sell-by date which has been
missed (combined with a lack of ability in the newer generation to play
sustainable Test cricket) or it is just an unfortunate synchronised
winding-down of a legendary batting line-up – time will tell, but India does
look ominously out of the series as they did against England at the half-way
stage then. This does look like a 0-4 rout as of now. When even someone like
Glenn McGrath is making correct predictions, something has to be so obviously
wrong that it is unlikely to be fixed in the short run. So, this defeat could
well be the end of an era for Indian cricket – or should we wait just one more
match before writing-off players of such pedigree?